I think there is one state, Ohio, that operates the way you consider the "normal" or "correct" standard of proof for deciding a self defense issue, that "the jury must be convinced it was most likely self-defense." (See Ohio 2901.05 Burden of proof). The other 56 states, including Florida, provide defendant with a self defense instruction if defendant has evidence that his action was self defense, and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was not acting in self defense.

56?

Quote

If I smash your face, and you get my shirt color wrong on recollection, that's a pretty normal error, and it doesn't make you a liar about getting your face smashed

It might if the color of the shirt was critical to why I may or may not have smashed your face.

If George is not telling the truth about Martin's 'sucker punch' it puts a rather big dent in his story, no?

1) TM passed by GZ in his truck. From the 911 call it is clear TM does this. Looking at an aerial view of the neighborhood it seems to me TM would have had other choices yet he chooses to pass by GZ's truck.

According to George the -only- place Martin 'passes by' his truck is when George is parked at the Clubhouse. Please show me how Martin gets to Twin Trees Lane without going past the Clubhouse on Retreat View Circle, or please show that it was possible (and Martin knew it was possible) to cut the long way around behind the Clubhouse.

Quote

2) TM had plenty of time and opportunity to make it home but he chose not to go. Serino seems to be under the impression TM was hiding somewhere but TM knew he has lost GZ because Dee confirms he did. Again, looking at photos it is easy to see how wide open the area is.

And George had plenty of time to get back to his truck. How is either point relevant. And how is TM supposed to 'know' he had 'lost' George? Did George 'know' he had lost Martin? No he did not - and we know that because even after he had lost sight of Martin, George did not want to say his address out loud.

Quote

3) TM confronts GZ. Whether TM asked GZ why he was following him or TM asked of GZ had a problem TM is the first to speak. The area where the struggle started looks open so it seems TM had to have approached GZ. That is not the actions of someone who is afraid.

Sheesh. Project much? If Martin was scared he wouldn't say something first? If he was scared he's just stay quiet and let George approach him? How does that even make any sense? If the area was so open why wasn't George able to just mosey on back to his truck? Remember: the *only* evidence we have of either guy following the other is George following Martin, not the other way around.

Also, DeeDee says Martin asks 'why are you following me' - that seems like an extremely reasonable, logical, and likely thing to ask to the guy that's been tracking you in his car and on foot for the last quarter of a mile.

Quote

Her testimony just doesn't ring true to me.

There are lots of reasons her testimony might not ring true, but your points above aren't any of 'em.

Also, DeeDee says Martin asks 'why are you following me' - that seems like an extremely reasonable, logical, and likely thing to ask to the guy that's been tracking you in his car and on foot for the last quarter of a mile.

You just got done stating that DeeDee's testimony is totally unreliable.- Does that means it fits in well with the rest of your presentation?

According to George the -only- place Martin 'passes by' his truck is when George is parked at the Clubhouse. Please show me how Martin gets to Twin Trees Lane without going past the Clubhouse on Retreat View Circle, or please show that it was possible (and Martin knew it was possible) to cut the long way around behind the Clubhouse.

He could have walked on the other side of the street or retraced via the direct rout to the 7-11. You have zero evidence that he was afraid ( that you haven't already conceded as unreliable)

And George had plenty of time to get back to his truck. How is either point relevant. And how is TM supposed to 'know' he had 'lost' George? Did George 'know' he had lost Martin? No he did not - and we know that because even after he had lost sight of Martin, George did not want to say his address out loud.

It seems rather obvious that when you lose site of a stranger, who you believe , is running out of the complex and cannot reestablish contact then you lost him. Please prove, otherwise with some real evidence.

It is also obvious that Trayvon after running a mere 15 seconds would be a position to verify that no one turned down the T after him ( we also have DeeDee's statement)

If you notice that I am not longer responding to your posts please don't think its because I buy what your trying to sell.

I find Dee Dee's account to be confusing and in parts contrived, but does it make sense to at least consider her testimony where it matches up with other pieces of evidence as a form of corroboration? Might be a reasonable approach on Z's statements as well. Obviously their stories don't match in a lot of places, but in others they appear to match pretty well. They both agree its raining, at least at times. They both agree TM walks by GZ as he's sitting in his car on TTL. They both agree TM takes off running towards BG's home as Z is sitting in his car. They both agree that Z lost sight of TM. They both agree that a confrontation of words took place that had TM speaking first and 3 utterances between them.

According to George the -only- place Martin 'passes by' his truck is when George is parked at the Clubhouse. Please show me how Martin gets to Twin Trees Lane without going past the Clubhouse on Retreat View Circle, or please show that it was possible (and Martin knew it was possible) to cut the long way around behind the Clubhouse.

Not really. When GZ is speaking to the 911 dispatcher is when I am referring to. But either way Martin passes by GZ's truck and could have went another path. That neighborhood is pretty wide open. Martin had plenty of paths to choose yet he walks by George's truck.

And George had plenty of time to get back to his truck. How is either point relevant. And how is TM supposed to 'know' he had 'lost' George? Did George 'know' he had lost Martin? No he did not - and we know that because even after he had lost sight of Martin, George did not want to say his address out loud.

What does George going back to his truck have to do with anything. Trayvon having time to get home is relevant. If he was scared that is where he would have went.

George did lose Martin. He tells the dispatcher "he ran" and then claims "I don't know where this kid is". How much more clear could that be?

Sheesh. Project much? If Martin was scared he wouldn't say something first? If he was scared he's just stay quiet and let George approach him? How does that even make any sense? If the area was so open why wasn't George able to just mosey on back to his truck? Remember: the *only* evidence we have of either guy following the other is George following Martin, not the other way around.

Why are you fixated on George going back to his truck?

You are wrong. Trayvon's mere presence where the struggle started proves he returned to where he had ran. That makes Trayvon the aggressor. Nothing else explains his presence there.

Also, DeeDee says Martin asks 'why are you following me' - that seems like an extremely reasonable, logical, and likely thing to ask to the guy that's been tracking you in his car and on foot for the last quarter of a mile.

Not really. If a person is afraid they usually don't hang around or return to inquire as to why the person is following them.

There are lots of reasons her testimony might not ring true, but your points above aren't any of 'em.

My points are spot on. I arrived at my conclusion by looking at the crime scene and learning what I could from witnesses with no "skin in the game", like DeeDee. I also think George's 911 call is a good reference because there isn't really a motive for him to lie at that point. Dee on the other hand has motive to lie.

It is also obvious that Trayvon after running a mere 15 seconds would be a position to verify that no one turned down the T after him ( we also have DeeDee's statement)

Cite that it was light enough around the T to see? I'm pretty sure George and many others have noted how dark it was.

There is no evidence of course that Trayvon was or wasn't scared. That's the whole point. I find it beyond laughable that someone is going to state that Trayvon 'couldn't have been scared' because he apparently 'spoke first'. What do you suppose the claim would be if Trayvon hadn't spoken first? "See, he stayed quiet because was trying to ambush George!". In fact, people are -still- trying to make this claim even though Trayvon apparently gave up any and all surprise advantage by speaking first.

The twists and contortions you and the other GZ supporters go through to try and make George blameless in all of this through all his inconcistencies is really and truly extraordinary.

I find Dee Dee's account to be confusing and in parts contrived, but does it make sense to at least consider her testimony where it matches up with other pieces of evidence as a form of corroboration? Might be a reasonable approach on Z's statements as well. Obviously their stories don't match in a lot of places, but in others they appear to match pretty well. They both agree its raining, at least at times. They both agree TM walks by GZ as he's sitting in his car on TTL. They both agree TM takes off running towards BG's home as Z is sitting in his car. They both agree that Z lost sight of TM. They both agree that a confrontation of words took place that had TM speaking first and 3 utterances between them.

I agree except Dee really only claims 2 utterances before the struggle and the phone falling. Witness 11 heard 3 utterances before the struggle. Seeing how Trayvon's phone was found so far down the path, in the grass, I don't see how anyone can claim the third utterance as being that.

Not really. If a person is afraid they usually don't hang around or return to inquire as to why the person is following them.

Interesting. George claims that he *didn't* go back to his truck and instead 'just hung around the area', as you put it, because he was scared. George does exactly what you insist a person wouldn't do. Trayvon wasn't scared, so he stayed put, George was scared so he scared put?

My points are spot on. I arrived at my conclusion by looking at the crime scene and learning what I could from witnesses with no "skin in the game", like DeeDee. I also think George's 911 call is a good reference because there isn't really a motive for him to lie at that point. Dee on the other hand has motive to lie.

I agree re George's phone call - which was NOT a 911 call, btw - so isn't it odd that in his walkthrough *the very next day*, George piles on inconsistency after inconsistency. I wonder why that is?

And what, pray tell, explains *George's* presence there, two minutes after losing Martin? Why does Martin's mere presence there automatically make him the aggressor?

I don't accept George's account unless there is something to back it up. George claims he walked to the other street to get an address and Martin came out of the dark when he was returning to his truck. Seeing how George's truck keys were found near the "T" I find that to support George's account of that. Unless there is evidence against this account that explains the position of the keys what else could have happened?

Martin's presence makes him the aggressor because it shows he returned to the "T" or at least came out of hiding to confront George. I tend to believe Martin was further down the sidewalk because he was running toward where he was staying. If Martin was doing all this walking Dee claims he was then he should have been well on his way home yet he ended up back at the "T".

Interesting. George claims that he *didn't* go back to his truck and instead 'just hung around the area', as you put it, because he was scared. George does exactly what you insist a person wouldn't do. Trayvon wasn't scared, so he stayed put, George was scared so he scared put?

I'm not really talking about whether George was scared or not. Dee doesn't mention that. She claims Martin was scared and I think that is bunk.

You can pretty much look at everything without George's statements and see what happened. The crime scene itself shows more than people realize. I just don't think DeeDee's testimony adds up that's all.

Zimmerman has incentive to tell it whichever way keeps him out of jail.

The people in the neighborhood have not going to jail for perjury as an incentive to be truthful and no incentive not to be truthful.

The young lady may think she has some incentive not to be truthful, but I would expect her parents to have explained to her that any incentive not to be truthful is far outweighed by the incentive not to be caught lying under oath.

Of course I'm not sure anyone is going to understand what she says, regardless.